What is the difference between defamation per se and defamation per quod?

Defamation is a statement that is false and damages someone’s reputation. In California, there are two kinds of defamation: defamation per se, and defamation per quod. Defamation per se is a statement that is considered so damaging that it is assumed to harm a person’s reputation without any additional evidence. This includes statements that accuse someone of criminal activity, imply an individual is infected with a contagious disease, or suggest that an individual is lacking in skills or qualifications for their profession. Defamation per quod is a statement that causes harm to a person’s reputation, but requires additional evidence of harm to be provided. This could include a statement that implies an individual is untrustworthy, or has a poor job performance record. In this case, the person accusing the individual of defamation must provide proof of actual damage as a result of the statement. In either case of defamation, both per se and per quod, a victim must demonstrate that the statement was both false and malicious. The statement must also be communicated to a third party, with the intent of inflicting harm. If the statement meets these criteria, a victim can seek legal recourse.

Related FAQs

Is it possible to win a defamation lawsuit without an attorney?
If a statement is true, is it still considered defamatory?
What kinds of damages can a person recover in a defamation lawsuit?
What are the elements of a defamation claim?
Are there any restrictions on the type of evidence that can be used in a defamation case?
How does defamation law differ from state to state?
What is the difference between libel and slander?
Can a company be sued for defamation?
Does a publisher or website have liability for third-party comments posted to its site?
What is the limit of a person’s responsibility regarding third-party comments?

What is the difference between defamation per se and defamation per quod?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts